20010516 TZCA Dar es Salaam

fli TH CC UT O' k?P:L Of TNL\ AT D?'RES SALAAM CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 51 OF 2000 In the Matter of an Intended Appeal BETJEEN ni (T) LThITED (DsM) ...........,. APPLICANT AND 0TU on behalf of, P.L. ASSENP & i06 OTHERS ,...... RESPONDENTS (Application for stay of exeeut ion from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Tanzania at Dar es Salaam) (Katiti, J.) dated the lkth day of June, 2000 in Civil Appei. No.96 of 199 R U L I N G LUGAKINGIRA J.A.: This is an application for stay of execution pending determination of an intended appa1 against the decision of the High Court at Dar-es- Salaarn in Civil Appeal NO. 96 of 1998. The application is supported by the affidavits of IbiliP Asher, the ápplieant 'a Administtive Manager, and Didier Belot, the applicant's Managing Director. The applicant was represented at the hearing by learned counsel, Mr. Lugano Mwandambo, while the respondents, for whom a counter-affidavit was sworn by Peter Assenga, were represented by learned counsel, Mr. C. A. Tenga. Several grounds were argued by Mr. Mwandambi, but I think the most crucial and which suffices to dispose of the application is that of jurisdiction. It is intended to argue before the Court of Appeal that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and that means the intended appeal has overwhelming chances of success. If execution is not stayed and the appeal succeeds, the applicant ./2 -2- stands to suffer irrep.rab1e loss as .the reondenta would not be in a posit ion to atone for the loss. Mr. Tenga did net wish to be heard an the prospects of the intended appeal buid he was .not seriously objecting to the application, if only tVig licant could deposit security in court. He was at a less, hewever, to suggest any anunt r of security. This Court has an various oc€asion held that where an ,.- - applicat.on for stay'or èeeition involves a question of 3uristhctlOn of €fl ri Lmr t.,.,.t)Vt it is only lo21cal that stay shoulbegranted. Th'qestion arises in this application and probably seriously so. Iut ion were allowed to proceed, it could complicate the matter tw'ther and the Court has a duty to prevent that. I am also of the view that this is not a proper case in which to order security apart, urse from the fact that Mr.g was vague'--abut it. • -S. I gi'ant the s d.osts will • caue. ..- DATEDM DAR ES SALAA1 this 16th day of May, 20G1. K.S.K. LUGAKNGERA - JUST± • P}EAL •_T .' - - •• • - - ,-.-- ••.,•.-•- I certify tgat this is true of-the original. ( A. G. AIuJA SENIORDEPUTYREGISTRAR:- 1 • •Lr ..•••.••• •4r. -: • - • . I - tin A •'.' •, -• r 1r- tp 1! '- ;-'" a ' $1_, - •'_-- I AW •-__ • 'I • --; - -:• ') - - i i - -- -: '': --•-' i-'r Zr 41 . : -- --- Cmaj in rr•- rc .. jS19ml L •--' p '1 • -- •- .'- t- - I . - 1' :(